• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why Evolution is True (3)

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The only thing that is absurd is your hand-waving and ad hoc past state fantasy.
Translated for lurkers....he cannot make anything valid in all his house of evo cards without that same state past he cannot prove. Flush.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Translated for lurkers....he cannot make anything valid in all his house of evo cards without that same state past he cannot prove. Flush.

I have given plenty of evidence for same state past. Not my fault you take a stance that can literally support ANY concept. Want to deny an observation? No problem. Just make up some malarkey about how things were different in the past. One could, using your method, even refute arguments that go against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Your past state explanations are so malleable, they explain absolutely nothing.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Your explanations are like a child trying to get out of trouble when caught doing something wrong. Just make up some whimsical story, and presto!, no gettin grounded. An answer for everything, those kids...
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The "study" that found 60-70% is, as far as I know, the only one of it's kind. No scientific study has published results in that manner. So, comparing it to ANY other similarity percentage study and drawing comparisons is apples to oranges.

thats because it takes sequencing into consideration, while most will find say a homologous gene and base it's percentages on the one in common, not on sequencing that is uncommon.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

you have to prove I don't understand evidence.

And there was no begging the question on the validity of evolution. The validity of evolution was proven long long before we were worrying about such details.

you have to prove evolution

But neither of these above proofs will you give me, or even attempt.

Such is the nature of debate with you.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
thats because it takes sequencing into consideration, while most will find say a homologous gene and base it's percentages on the one in common, not on sequencing that is uncommon.

Not...the...point. I think you are completely wrong, and out of your element, here, but it doesn't even matter. This topic has been covered on these forums before. Loudmouth and sfs explained it thoroughly.

Again, my issue was with you comparing two different methods of measurement to conclude that we are more similar to cats.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟48,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

I noticed your signature, ironic.

I mean because macro evolution is unobserved, and how can it possibly test any hypothesis, without observation, in fact how can it even be a theory. How can it even be falsifiable without observation to begin with?

again your theory, or lack of a science theory, is apparent.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?

If the rate of evolution is fairly constant the difference between cats and humans is 10% compared to 2% difference between man and chimp. That would take 5 times as long. So that split would be roughly 35 million years ago compared to the 7 million year split between man and chimp.

And the shared ancestor with a cat was not a feline. You still need some work on understanding clades.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

Too bad that you did not understand it.

Also you keep forgetting that macro evolution has been observed. You have been told countless times how it has been observed.

Now would you like to work on your understanding my signature?
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?

It has taken 6 million years for us to be as little as 2-4% different. Cats are anywhere from 2.5 to 5 times more different from us than chimps are. Pretty simple logic.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
OK so you admit to being relatives with the beast, and also a potato. Great, now one final admission before you slink off, will you admit you think flatworms having sex are why mankind is here and exists??

The successful reproduction of the common ancestor of today's flatworms and you and me is of course the reason we are here. You are the result of 3 and half billion years of successful reproduction, which is why reproduction and everything related to it is often on your mind. If love, relationships, mating and raising a family weren't on your mind so often your line would be more likely to disappear. This also encompasses things that make you an attractive mate to the other sex, which covers directly or indirectly the majority of everything else you think about. Status for instance covers everything from career to pride to reputation to social confidence to 'keeping up with the Jones's next door'. Whether you recognise that or not is your problem, but you are what you are: an organism programmed by its evolutionary history towards the goal of survival and successful reproduction.
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,216
3,941
Southern US
✟490,314.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I visited around 20 Christian Churches, and I noticed all tour guides referred to "B.C." as "Before Christ". But you haven't really asked me a relevant question yet, so I will ask you. I do know Europe has diverse beliefs like the USA, though not 77% Christian like the USA. Apparently Great Britain is 54% Christian.



What evidence do you base your belief in Darwinian evolution, and what is your academic background?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I visited around 20 Christian Churches, and I noticed all tour guides referred to "B.C." as "Before Christ". But you haven't really asked me a relevant question yet, so I will ask you.

Yes I did, I asked you if you noticed how your religious views were generally regarded in those countries. If you didn't get a proper feeling of how your views were regarded that would be fair enough, but if you had you would remember.

What evidence do you base your belief in Darwinian evolution, and what is your academic background?

That's relevant for you to answer about how your views are regarded abroad is it? My background is environmental science. What's yours?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I do know Europe has diverse beliefs like the USA, though not 77% Christian like the USA. Apparently Great Britain is 54% Christian.

Ah, you've expanded your answer.

54% christian in the UK sounds a bit low to be honest. But, and this is a big but, being a christian doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in fundamentalist america. Here it's just a box that you tick on a form in the same way you might say your local football club is Blackburn Rovers. It doesn't mean you actively follow the club. Do you see?
 
Upvote 0